The discussion of morals and moral responsibility is deep-seated in the classic philosophical repertoire. A closely related matter, and a frequent objection to moral responsibility, is determinism, the idea that given the initial state and laws of the universe, all future events and outcomes are completely determined. Over the course of this paper, I describe a particular theory for how moral responsibility can exist even in a deterministic universe.
One prominent view in the realm of moral responsibility is the libertarian stance. Libertarians believe that moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism because they see humans as necessarily free and morally responsible agents. In his essay “Free Will, Praise, and Blame,” J. J. C. Smart refutes the libertarian theory and puts forth his own framework for understanding the question of moral responsibility. Smart claims the libertarian perspective is unfounded because it is built on a contradiction. He contends that there are only two ways events may occur: through causal continuity or by pure chance. If all events are causally continuous, all outcomes can theoretically be predicted if the initial state of the universe is known. If some events occur rely on pure chance, it becomes impossible to accurately predict outcomes, …show more content…
He specifically focuses on the kind of moral responsibility that would hold human agents ultimately accountable for their actions, the kind of moral responsibility that would make it justifiable to eternally reward or punish people for their actions through heaven and hell. In simple terms, the Basic Argument may be stated as
One prominent view in the realm of moral responsibility is the libertarian stance. Libertarians believe that moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism because they see humans as necessarily free and morally responsible agents. In his essay “Free Will, Praise, and Blame,” J. J. C. Smart refutes the libertarian theory and puts forth his own framework for understanding the question of moral responsibility. Smart claims the libertarian perspective is unfounded because it is built on a contradiction. He contends that there are only two ways events may occur: through causal continuity or by pure chance. If all events are causally continuous, all outcomes can theoretically be predicted if the initial state of the universe is known. If some events occur rely on pure chance, it becomes impossible to accurately predict outcomes, …show more content…
He specifically focuses on the kind of moral responsibility that would hold human agents ultimately accountable for their actions, the kind of moral responsibility that would make it justifiable to eternally reward or punish people for their actions through heaven and hell. In simple terms, the Basic Argument may be stated as